Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Minimum 'caliber' for Kodiak Brown Bear?

Death is a result of bleeding and broken body parts. Not by specific cartridges. If anyone has more experience than Phil Shoemaker has, please join in...

Wow! Purty impressive coming from a state Dept of a Fish and Game.

Just for clarity....... My ? Here is about the 'legal' minimum cal. on Kodiak pfor BB. The Pro stated the minimum was 338. I thot or questioned that 'maybe' the legal minimum had changed

You guys have answered my ? and I've enjoyed your responses and experiences.

Don't stop, I'm having fun.

A 22 Hornet would be legal by definition, as would the 17. The only �caliber� restriction is placed on the use of rimfire cartridges for big game.

As I recall, a couple of Coasties used a 223 with Sierra varmint bullets to take a good-sized bear on Kodiak a few years ago......FWIW. But Phil�s advice is where I�d start, and there may be some hunting conditions where more would be prudent.

You are asking to be a campfire pariah by using logic quoting people's posts here. Especially since your handle alludes to having served in a combat arms unit. Everyone in MT probably already hates you for it.

Okay, but I am confused. You use a .458 Win for backup on, and for killing, big bears, right? Not a .270; not a .308; not a 30-06; not a 300 WM; not a .338 WM; not a .375 H&H; etc ..., but a .458 WM, right? Is there some value to that?

Fair enough. The title does ask for a minimum. My problem with an absolute minimum is that there isn�t one. People argue convincingly that, if a 7mm RM or 30-06 can do something, then the right bullet from a .270 Win can do the same most of the time. True. However, then you legitimately can say that anything a .270 Win can do, a .25-06 can do most of the time. True. Then you can say that anything a .25-06 can do, a .243 Win can do. True. Then you can say that anything a.243 Win can do, a .223 can do. And anything a .223 can do, a .17 can do. And anything a .17 can do, a .22LR can do at reasonable range. The Inuit have taken thousands of brown bear with .22 cal. centerfire rifles at really close range. It�s not a good choice for modern hunting of brown bear, especially if you are hinting BB rarely at great cost and not in your backyard.

Think of people. Reagan was shot with a .22LR in 1980. In his late 70s, he didn�t even know he was shot for about 30 minutes. He would have died if he had not been taken to GWU Med. Ctr. If Hinckley had shot him with a .44 Mag in the same place (lungs), he likely would have died fairly quickly. A .22LR could be a minimum for anti-personnel shooting, but it�s considerably inferior to even a 9mm Para.

Bears can�t be different. A .270 can work with a good shot, but as 458 has suggested, a .458 WM works a lot better. It�s common sense. A .22LR is great on a squirrel. But less so on a deer. A .270 is great for a 150lb deer or even a 500 lb elk, but perhaps less than ideal for a 1,110lb brown bear.

Accuracy in the face of recoil is a different matter. If one can�t shoot a medium bore well (either because of a disability or because of lack of diligence and training), then that hunter is better off with the lighter caliber. But, I, likely like many others, have trained myself to shoot medium bores well. If you do so, and have one, it is better in terms of terminal performance.

If I could only shoot a .270 accurately (which may be true someday), I would be happy to hunt brown bear with one. It may fall within some gray area of a minimum caliber, but it�s obviously less than ideal for an animal potentially weighing more than 900lbs, especially if it is a difficult/expensive hunt.

I�ve shot a large bear with my .375 Wby. But I�ve also shot water vessels and wet, muddy berms with it. It�s MUCH more violent that when I do so with my .308 Win., my 7mm Wby, my .300 WM, etc� Much more violent. People at the ranges (with their own guns chambered in .270 or greater) gasp when they see it. It�s different. It matters. If you don�t want to, or can�t shoot something like that, it�s fine to hunt giant animals with something less. But, as I said, I�d rather shoot a Mk. VI Tiger with a 90mm long-barreled gun than with a short 75mm gun. Bigger is better when you are facing big game. Unless it degrades your accuracy, and, at least up to the .375 Wby in the field, it does not degrade mine and many others.

In other words, if you can shoot a pie plate at 200 yds with a .375 H&H etc ... its a better option for brown bear. If not, for whatever reason, a .270 Win is fine, but less ideal to me.

A bigger/deeper cavity on larger animals works better even if not a terrible gut shot, which no one would recommend with any caliber.

For example, a .270 will stop a cape buffalo (a little bigger than a large BB) if you do your part, but you're not allowed by law to even attempt it in most places. There is a reason for that.

You've shot one frigging bear, and come on here like you have some sort of a clue. How dare you question Phil.

You may want to stop now.

Did you think of any of these things?
.458Win is a well known and regarded Brown Bear guide?
Has killed more bears then you will ever see in your life time?
Has the skill set to shoot a .458 well?
The list could go on but this should give you a little to think about.

Sad. I don't even think I "questioned" Phil . That's the point of discussion. I come her and see more aggressive attempts to quiet discussion than a actual discussion. If it's just the Phil forum, then that's fine, I now get most of my info elsewhere. How "dare" I state my own opinion? Nice. But, if you look at any of this, and actually read it, I'm not sure I have disagreed with Phil, whom I respect beyond compare. I'm just giving my own thoughts. I honestly can't say whether Phil agrees with me or how much he disagrees with me based on his previous posts. Can you "Prairie Goat"? He obviously prefers a .458 WM for brown bear. How much so over a .270 is a question.

In my experience, the useful forums are where people discuss topics openly without fear that they might be accused of "daring to question" something, especially if they aren't really questioning it, but just discussing the factors and limits.

Yes. See my previous post.



Yeah, others can shoot medium/large bores well. That's my point. I don't think he disagrees with that. I could be wrong. Much of the discussion about how small of a rifle is okay for hunting large game centers on the idea that few people can handle any significant recoil. I don't know how that has/could play out with the masses, but I KNOW that a good shot with a typical rifle can successfully learn to handle recoil from a medium large bore by spending enough time/effort doing so. I doubt Phil disagrees with that. But a lot of people, instead, focus on a minimum caliber.

I spent countless hours over 18 months shooting my ,375 Wby over and over again before my last hunt. I worked my a$$ off to get really good with that rifle. I thought it mattered. It worked. It's not a bad idea. I don't necessarily think Phil would disagree. Maybe he will say.

It's pretty obvious from your posts you haven't done much hunting. That's ok. But to come on and act like you know what you're talking about is silly.

Did you ever think that maybe the reasoning for carrying a 458 is to sort out bad situations caused by poor shooting from fellows who couldn't handle their fire breathing magnums?

MH, You might be surprised at the number of people who come bear hunting who do not shoot the bigger stuff especially well.



A person (guide) who is compelled to finish a botched harvest (wounded bear) is well served by the use of a rifle with more �oomph� than what a hunter might use. A wounded bear can be a whole different creature than even an aware and wary bear. A bear that isn�t hit well might as well have been darted instead with a heavy dose of adrenaline.

I am generally an �enough gun� advocate but excellent placement of a proper bullet always rules #1.

I have been hunting since 1977.

I'm not acting, and only people like you even make weird accusations like that.

So, Phil, by strongly preferring, and carrying himself, a .458 is doing that "to sort out bad situations caused by poor shooting from fellows who couldn't handle their fire breathing magnums"? I didn't know you thought so little of Phil. Nice.

I don't disagree, and I don't think I have said otherwise. But, for those who have taken the objective and learned to shoot something bigger well (it can be done with practice and focus, if you want to), it's better to go big. I honestly shoot my .340 Wby Accumark more accurately than all my other rifles, including my .375. so, I can't see why I would take a .270 I don't shoot any better on my hunt next Sept. Ten years ago, I might make a different decision, and it would not be wrong, like that of many others. But, it you can shoot a medium bore as well as a deer rifle, and you have one, go big. No harm. Possibly some benefit.

This is really funny, knowing where you are getting your info... Over-moderation is a long way from an open forum. They only let you say your ridiculous stuff and strut because they make sure everybody gets to do the same without any questioning...

It is only when forced to defend statements that everyone gets to see how ridiculous they might be. Many will fail to recognize just how stupid a comment is until the right questions are asked of the poster.

That is actually a free forum... not some glee club for only those that want to hold hands and play nice.

Otherwise you end up with protected clueless idiots claiming to be ballistic gurus with no concept of spin dynamics. Or physicists claiming some unknown force goes into their gunsafe to move dry salt around.

Yeah, that is a great way to gain knowledge, for sure...

Interesting method you're using to try and turn it around on me. You're logic is extremely strange regarding Phil and the 458.

Here's a quick rundown why you obviously haven't done much hunting and killing:

1: A quick Google search for Brown Bear hunting cartridges shows that you have posted up about your hunt on nearly every forum available. And that's about all you've posted about. We can forgive you for this, as maybe that's all you're interested in posting about.

2. You quote a lot of numbers, and shoot big guns. These sorts of things are normally done by guys who don't have much experience. That's ok. We are all at different points in the what is needed for killing journey, and you will learn.

If my feeble mind remembers correctly,and unless things have changed. the world record Alaskan Brown Bear was killed in 1952 with a 30/06.

I also have a vague recollection that the world record polar bear was shot with a 270.

If nothing else, we can take this and several decades of dead bears to establish safe minimums.The 30/06 has passed so many similar tests it doesn't merit conversation.

Coming to firm conclusions on brown bear cartridges is OK so long as we don't take our own advice too seriously; there being very few living humans who can claim "expert" status on killing brown bears simply because so few get much opportunity to kill very many,or see very many shot.

We have some such people posting here and have already heard from them.

I have killed only two; and seen three others shot.Both of mine were killed with a 375H&H. Professing any expertise or lecturing what else works and how, based on such thin experience is the same as saying I'm a great ladies man because I pinched a couple of asses in a crowded bar.

MH, I will agree that a .375 is arguably a "better" choice for brown bears than a .270 and yes I do prefer my .458 for tracking wounded bears in the pucker brush. But I would certainly not recommed a 458 to a client as the majority of clients who bring up larger bore magnum rifles, especially Weatherby's, do not shoot them well.
The vast majority of, actually when I think of it, every wounded bear that I have had to follow up was due to hunters using magnum rifles that they were afraid of and who didn't shoot as well as they claimed to . I have never had a Client who brought a 270, 7 mag or 30-06 ever loose a wounded bear.

I will also add that I have used my 30-06 to stop a number of wounded bears, both from escaping as well as charging.

Here is just one example of a bear that was poorly hit and wounded by a Weatherby shooting client that I had to track and finish with my 30-06

For crying out loud, if you can shoot the 375 Weatherby well and are confident using it, then why even bother with this "smallest caliber for a Kodiak brown bear" nonsense? You asked for some opinions and got them.

If I were headed out on a guided brown bear hunt, Phil would be the first one i'd ask about caliber choice. It's the guides ass that's on the line if something goes awry during the hunt and the last thing i'd want is to have my guide have to go in some nasty alder tag after a wounded brown bear.

Read what Phil has to say about the subject, I can't think of anyone more qualified on the matter.